Yeah, but collide doesn't control destructibility, I think. Only collisions. So it means you can't bump into a turret and destroy it, but you can fire upon it. I should check and be sure.Deus Siddis wrote:The Collide_Subunits column is empty for all vessels, turret bases and turret guns. It isn't used for anything besides asteroids, which seems strange since turrets are supposed to be destructible.
0.6 plans
-
- Elite
- Posts: 7243
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
- Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina
Re: 0.6 plans
-
- Elite
- Posts: 1363
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm
Re: 0.6 plans
So is there any special reason why we do not want collisions with turrets?klauss wrote: Yeah, but collide doesn't control destructibility, I think. Only collisions. So it means you can't bump into a turret and destroy it, but you can fire upon it. I should check and be sure.
-
- Elite
- Posts: 7243
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
- Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina
Re: 0.6 plans
Performance.Deus Siddis wrote:So is there any special reason why we do not want collisions with turrets?klauss wrote: Yeah, but collide doesn't control destructibility, I think. Only collisions. So it means you can't bump into a turret and destroy it, but you can fire upon it. I should check and be sure.
-
- Elite
- Posts: 1363
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm
Re: 0.6 plans
Doesn't VS use some form of collision culling?
-
- Elite
- Posts: 7243
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
- Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina
Re: 0.6 plans
Yes. And subunit stuff is part of that.
-
- Elite
- Posts: 1363
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm
Re: 0.6 plans
So do you mean subunits don't get culled separately from their parent unit and its other subunits? The engine either checks for a collision with a unit and each of its subunits or checks nothing at all?
-
- Elite
- Posts: 7243
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
- Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina
Re: 0.6 plans
Yep. Not what I would've done, but it's what we have.Deus Siddis wrote:So do you mean subunits don't get culled separately from their parent unit and its other subunits? The engine either checks for a collision with a unit and each of its subunits or checks nothing at all?
-
- Elite Venturer
- Posts: 753
- Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:40 am
- Location: chthonic safety
Re: 0.6 plans
More on CSV:Deus Siddis wrote:Alright then the Heat_Sinks_Rating column should get deleted...
-Heat_Sink_Rating
(does nothing)
-Slide_Start,
-Slide_End
(are read to / written from computer.slide_start and computer.slide_end, that do nothing)
+Can_Lock
Near ITTS. This and ITTS may be not really needed when there's Tracking_Cone and Locking_Cone, but whatever.
+MinTargetSize
Radar resolution limit is actually implemented, though some improvement won't hurt, of course.
+Equipment_Space
(raw internal space)
+Hidden_Hold_Volume
(contraband!)
?Wormhole
It seems to be functional, but not used in VS data and perhaps can be better implemented otherwise.
Also, some descriptions need to be fixed, yes:
Code: Select all
Sub_Units {filename(string);x(meters);y(meters);z(meters);forex(meters);forey(meters);forez(meters);upx(meters);upy(meters);upz(meters);restricted(meters)}
to
{filename(string);x(meters);y(meters);z(meters);forex(meters);forey(meters);forez(meters);upx(meters);upy(meters);upz(meters);restricted(degrees)}
Light
{meshfile(string);x(meters);y(meters);z(meters);scale(meters);r(percentage);g(percentage);b(percentage);a(percentage);activationspeed(meters/second)}
to
{meshfile(string);x(meters);y(meters);z(meters);scale(meters);r(percentage);g(percentage);b(percentage);a(percentage);activationspeed(meters/second);forex(meters);forey(meters);forez(meters);upx(meters);upy(meters);upz(meters)}
Mounts
{type(string);ammo(int);volume(meters);SIZE(string);x(meters);y(meters);z(meters);xyscale(meters);zscale(meters);forex(meters);forey(meters);forez(meters);upx(meters);upy(meters);upz(meters);functionality(percentage);maxfunctionality(percentage)}
to
{type(string);ammo(int);volume(meters);SIZE(string);x(meters);y(meters);z(meters);xyscale(meters);zscale(meters);forex(meters);forey(meters);forez(meters);upx(meters);upy(meters);upz(meters);functionality(percentage);maxfunctionality(percentage);banked(boolean)}
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
-
- Elite
- Posts: 7243
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
- Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina
Re: 0.6 plans
There is vector thrust already, although vectored thrust is unrelated to "lights" (which are exhausts, not sure why they're called lights).TBeholder wrote:I don't know why on Earth or in space a torch would need more than one vector... cone at least could be useful for implementing vector thrust. "Banked" mount field can be useful and is actually supported in code, though needs some improvements.
The exhausts need 3 vectors, as all transformations do: forward, up, and right. You could say you don't need up and right since exhaust meshes are radially symmetrical, be we don't assume that, and up and right's vector lengths implement radial scaling, so they're not useless.
Forward also acts as activation direction (ie: thrust direction is its reverse). I've been thinking of adding a fourth vector to make activation vector explicit.
-
- Elite
- Posts: 1363
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm
Re: 0.6 plans
So if the light column represents thruster exhausts, then what column defines where the blinking wingtip lights go on ships and the landing lights go on stations?
-
- Elite
- Posts: 7243
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
- Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina
Re: 0.6 plans
Those are part of the mesh. They're triquads (3 quads, one on each axial plane) with an animated texture.
-
- Developer
- Posts: 2150
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:17 am
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
Re: 0.6 plans
my android work deadline is over...so i'm thinking starting next week i'll be able to spend a lot of time with VS. I think i'm gonna leave the backend stuff alone for now and focus on what i originally wanted to do and consolidate system activity and all the other related changes i mentioned that go along with that... I dont think it will be extremely heavy on the C++ side of things. At least not until the python side is complete and we know what kind of performance / gameplay issues crop up
Ed Sweetman endorses this message.
-
- Elite
- Posts: 7243
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
- Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina
Re: 0.6 plans
You mean the merge? Isn't it done already? What did I forget to merge?safemode wrote:At least not until the python side is complete and we know what kind of performance / gameplay issues crop up
-
- Developer
- Posts: 2150
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:17 am
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
Re: 0.6 plans
klauss wrote:You mean the merge? Isn't it done already? What did I forget to merge?safemode wrote:At least not until the python side is complete and we know what kind of performance / gameplay issues crop up
no. I mean after I consolidate and change spec and such behavior. I'm sure after those python data changes, bugs or issues will crop
up. things like ai, mostly. but possibly other limitations.
Ed Sweetman endorses this message.
-
- Elite
- Posts: 7243
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
- Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina
Re: 0.6 plans
Ah, yeah. Most likely. In fact I expect a few.
-
- Elite
- Posts: 1363
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm
Re: 0.6 plans
By the way Klauss, I forgot there's actually I few more altered files that need to applied with that split CSV package I posted for it to work; both master_part_list.csv and faction_ships.py. I also have a couple more corrections to the split units files themselves and the latest factions.xml fix.
Where do I get the py3 version of faction_ships.py so that I can correct it?
Where do I get the py3 version of faction_ships.py so that I can correct it?
-
- Elite
- Posts: 7243
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
- Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina
Re: 0.6 plans
It should be in trunk already.Deus Siddis wrote:Where do I get the py3 version of faction_ships.py so that I can correct it?
-
- Developer
- Posts: 2150
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:17 am
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
Re: 0.6 plans
be aware anyone modifying /data files ... py3 cares about spaces vs tabs used for indentation. You _MUST_ keep whatever method that file happens to use... ie. If the entire file uses tabs for indentation then your edit cannot use spaces for indentation, it must also use tabs. And vice versa.
this is file-by-file ...so one file can be using spaces and another can be using tabs ..that's fine. It just can't be mixed within the same file.
this is file-by-file ...so one file can be using spaces and another can be using tabs ..that's fine. It just can't be mixed within the same file.
Ed Sweetman endorses this message.
-
- Elite
- Posts: 7243
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
- Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina
Re: 0.6 plans
Let me add: any new files must use spaces.
-
- Elite
- Posts: 1363
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm
Re: 0.6 plans
Statement fixed.klauss wrote:Let me add: ALL files must use spaces.
-
- Developer
- Posts: 2150
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:17 am
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
-
- Elite
- Posts: 7243
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
- Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina
Re: 0.6 plans
Feel free to fix as you edit or stumble upon them, that's the general idea. A separate commit for whitespace changes is even better, since it doesn't pollute the diffs.
-
- Elite
- Posts: 1363
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm
Re: 0.6 plans
What I mean is that's a bug and we should schedule it to be fixed, rather than appease it. Bugs don't deserve our compassion.safemode wrote:except not all currently do. many use real tabs.
Do you have a list of the offending PY files?
-
- Elite
- Posts: 1363
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm
Re: 0.6 plans
It is really hard to put together a reasonable weapon load out in VS. The trouble is the few, not so well balanced weapons are spread out over too many categories that are only available at certain destinations, with minutes of travel between them.
So I want to merge light guns, medium guns, heavy guns, light beams, medium beams, heavy beams, capship, into one category- Human. So there will be only three categories total, Human, Rlaan and Aera, each spawning only at the bases of the faction of the same name. This is in addition to the existing Ammunition category(s) which covers missiles and weapon reloads.
So I want to merge light guns, medium guns, heavy guns, light beams, medium beams, heavy beams, capship, into one category- Human. So there will be only three categories total, Human, Rlaan and Aera, each spawning only at the bases of the faction of the same name. This is in addition to the existing Ammunition category(s) which covers missiles and weapon reloads.
-
- Elite Venturer
- Posts: 753
- Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:40 am
- Location: chthonic safety
Re: 0.6 plans
You got a point in that availability of goods indeed shouldn't have much to do with equipment slot as such (other than when it obviously does, e.g. capship sized guns not present just anywhere), but that would be going too far. There could be a few categories like Confed now. Stuff you'd have on an average mining station or something vs. stuff from military surplus - this makes sense in-universe and could give at least general idea of what may be purchased where. E.g. - Human/Basic ("Lazer", massdrivers, a pair of low-powered beams, Swarm, Dumbfire, Heatseeker) - /Security (those beam zappers and something) - /Advanced (IonBurster, most beams) - /Military or /Confed (Razor, Shieldbreaker, good rockets and missiles), etc.Deus Siddis wrote:So I want to merge light guns, medium guns, heavy guns, light beams, medium beams, heavy beams, capship, into one category- Human. So there will be only three categories total, Human, Rlaan and Aera, each spawning only at the bases of the faction of the same name. This is in addition to the existing Ammunition category(s) which covers missiles and weapon reloads.
With one or two "too good" categories sometimes given as low-probablility low-quantity ("perhaps you're not screwed, but don't rely on this") cargo.
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter